2026-09-12 · Missouri · Legislation · Did not pass

What happened. A Missouri bill to strip homeowners associations, condominium associations, property owners associations and master associations of any power to restrict concealed carry — anywhere on the property, including common elements and parking areas — was filed for the second session running and died without a hearing. It was never referred to a policy committee at all.¹

The bill was HB 1665 (2026), sponsored by Representative Brian Seitz of the 156th District in Taney County. It was pre-filed on 1 December 2025, the first day the Missouri Constitution permits, read twice in the session's first two days, and then sat until the constitutional cutoff.

The operative text

The bill inserted the same new subsection into two statutes — section 571.107 (standard concealed carry permits) and section 571.215 (Missouri lifetime and extended permits). From section 571.107 as it would have been rewritten:

“3. (1) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, no homeowners' association, condominium owners' association, property owners' association, master association, or any other similar superordinate entity shall, by rule, policy, covenant, deed, contract, or any other similar instrument or method, infringe upon the right to carry concealed firearms of any person who:

(a) Is an owner or occupant of a condominium or house within or under the control, authority, limits, or oversight of any such association or entity; and

(b) Is lawfully in possession of a valid concealed carry permit issued under sections 571.101 to 571.121, a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit or endorsement issued by another state or a political subdivision of another state.

(2) The prohibition on any infringement on the right to carry concealed firearms described in subdivision (1) of this subsection shall extend to privately owned property, common elements, limited common elements, parking areas, and all ingress and egress routes, paths, and areas regardless of use, purpose, activity, necessity, convenience, or alternative.”

The parallel insertion at section 571.215 was identical except that subparagraph (b) read: “Is lawfully in possession of a valid Missouri lifetime or extended concealed carry permit.”

Three drafting choices that made this unusually broad

It reached recorded covenants, not just board rules. The list is “rule, policy, covenant, deed, contract, or any other similar instrument or method.” Most Missouri bills that override association authority speak to deed restrictions and covenants; this one added rules, policies and contracts, which is the full range of instruments a board actually uses.

It covered condominiums, which the session's other HOA bills did not. “Common elements” and “limited common elements” are Chapter 448 terms of art. The two dissolution bills in the same session expressly carved condominium unit owners' associations out; this one put them squarely in scope, and named them.

The closing clause foreclosed the usual defences. “Regardless of use, purpose, activity, necessity, convenience, or alternative” is written to pre-empt an argument that a clubhouse, a pool deck or an amenity area is different because of what happens there, or because a permit holder could go around.

Where it stopped

• 1 December 2025 — Prefiled (H)
• 7 January 2026 — Read First Time (H), Journal p. 13
• 8 January 2026 — Read Second Time (H), p. 263
• 15 May 2026 — “Referred: Emerging Issues(H)”, p. 2683

Its hearing page reads: “This Bill is currently not scheduled for a committee hearing.” 15 May 2026 was the constitutional cutoff, so that referral could not lead anywhere — no notice, no hearing, no vote.

1. HB 1665 (2026), introduced text (LR 3867H.01I) — proposed §§ 571.107.3 and 571.215.3, RSMo ↩
2. Official House summary of HB 1665 (2026) ↩
3. HB 1415 (2025) action history — the predecessor bill, heard in General Laws on 25 March 2025 ↩
4. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 442.404 — the only Missouri statute limiting what association covenants may prohibit ↩